'Flammable' bras hold back Swedish female conscripts

[MothBalls]

How dare they buy inappropriate bras for combat.



http://www.thelocal.se/22228/20090922/

The bras issued to Swedish female military conscripts easily catch fire and are prone to coming undone, making them inappropriate for the battlefield, claims a conscripts’ rights group.


“Our opinion is that the Swedish Armed Forces should have ordered good, flame-proof underwear,” Council spokesperson Paulina Rehbinder told The Local.

You just can't make this chit up.

[Shearwater]

The women complained that the bras’ fasteners have a tendency to come undone when the women performed rigorous exercise

Maybe they're just trying to get more male volunteers

[Jimbuna]

The women complained that the bras’ fasteners have a tendency to come undone when the women performed rigorous exercise, forcing the female soldiers to take off all of their equipment in order to refasten the brassieres.

Looks like there'll be an upsurge in Drill Instructors recruitment

[August]

Few people, including me, care about their flammability.

On the other hand this is freaking hot!:

The women complained that the bras’ fasteners have a tendency to come undone when the women performed rigorous exercise, forcing the female soldiers to take off all of their equipment in order to refasten the brassieres.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm with August on this one

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Shearwater

Maybe they're just trying to get more male volunteers

Nah, see-thru male underwear would work for that.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Nah, see-thru male underwear would work for that.

LMAO

Trust you

[martes86]

[UnderseaLcpl]

The women complained that the bras’ fasteners have a tendency to come undone when the women performed rigorous exercise, forcing the female soldiers to take off all of their equipment in order to refasten the brassieres.

On a more serious note; why is Sweden conscripting people at all, let alone women?

I really, really hate bringing this up in any discussion, but <wince> women are not suited to combat. Granted, some of them are almost a little too suited for combat. I've served alongside women who wouldn't think twice about beating a person to death with their only child, and they scare me.
That said, most women simply do not function well in a combat environment, and men certainly don't function well around them. For those of you with military experience, I ask you this; How long does it take for a group of military males, left to their own devices, to start obsessing about females? In my experience it often takes less than six hours, and sometimes takes as little as thirty minutes. I'll expound on this later, but first let us take a look at the general suitability of the average female human in a combat environment.

As we are all well aware, females average less upper-body strength than males. They also, on average, have less muscle and bone density overall. The exception to this is the female leg structure, which is actually capable of supporting more muscle mass than the male counterpart, given it's more stable nature, though it rarely does. We have all heard the complaints that females make about weight going "to their hips". I understand their annoyance with the fact that muscle and fat are unevenly distributed to their hips when some cultures idealize female thinness, but I think that both females and males are missing the evolutionary point of these adaptions.

I'm rambling now, but I am sure that it is important for humans of both sexes to understand the reasons for our conceptions of "beauty". As a species, we have survived and thrived because of brain capacity. We are also a very social species, a trait which requires larger brain capacity.
Proportionately, we have the largest cognitive brain of any species on the planet. Big brains require (guess what), big heads. Humans think that big heads are a good phenotype that is desireable in offspring, but not only because of the potential for brain capacity. Ever notice how children's heads are large compared to the rest of their bodies? Ever notice how big their eyes are? Proportionately large heads and eyesockets are phenotypical indications of youth. Youth indicates potential fertility, and in a species that has had only a few tens of thousands of years to develop social mores, It is no surprise that oversized craniums are viewed as being desireable phenotypes.

Now, let us go back to the female "hip" thing again. In a species that thrives because of brain capacity, and the large craniums that accomodate that capacity, and the reproductive desire to pursue mates with large heads (both to obtain cranial capacity and youthful appearance in offspring) it is obviously neccessary to have a birth canal that can accomodate the passage of a very large head. Some women actually have the wide hips and corresponding pelvic cavity needed to permit such passage,(and many do not) but evolution, as always, and especially in the human species, has some clever adaptions.

As I previously mentioned, many women lament that fat seems to go straight to their hips, and it actually does. The theory I am sharing with you here suggests that when mankind first began developing the brain capacity that we as homo sapiens so cherish, it was a successful adaption, and there were two kinds of females who carried it forward: those with wide pelvises, and those who appeared to have wide pelvises, due to fat deposits.
Apparently, there were a lot more females who only appeared to have wide hips, because our infant and maternal mortality rates as a species have been fairly high for a k-strategist organism, suggesting that narrow and hazardous birth canals are the rule rather than the exception.

I digress further, but it is interesting to note that in the most advanced societies on this planet, thinness is a desireable phenotype in females. Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, that doesn't make much sense. A thin female is less likely be an acceptable childbearer because she does not appear to have the physical reserves needed to bear a healthy chid. Nonetheless, thinness is the standard.

All of the ideas I have posited thus far do not actually belong to me. Most of them belong to Matt Ridley, the acclaimed geneticist that virtually no-one knows about. I will however, posit this (as far as I am aware) original idea. I think that our cognitive ability as a species is outpacing evolution. I think that we, as a species, have mostly overcome the phenotypic deception that was the mechanism by which inferior genes were propogated. People want mates with minimal fat because we know that fat is decieving. Women with wide hips and little body fat are generally desireable, as are men with broad chests and little body fat. Imho, as our society and genetics have advanced, we have surpassed the need for genetic deception to some degree.

I've gone way, way OT on this subject, but to understand the suitability of either sex in combat, one must know the fundamentals. If you're going to understand them the way I understand them, you'll actually need to read all that rigamaroo I just said. But let us return to the topic of the effectiveness of the female soldier.

To their credit, and my great dismay as a rifleman, females are actually better shots than males are. For those of you who are familiar with the fundamentals of marksmanship, this should be apparent. When it comes to steady shots on a known-distance range, females have a better bone structure. In the standing position, they can actually rest their elbows on their hips without lifting a foot, due to their shorter torsos and bigger hips.
From there on it just gets worse for us, guys. The female kneeling, sitting and comabt (crossed-ankle or close-footed) prone positions are all more stable than the those of the males. Chalk it up to that wide hip structure. Their legs are just better and more stable than ours are when it comes to shooting.

In the logistical sense, however, women are uniquely unsuited to combat. Due to hygenic problems associated with their internal genitalia, women simply cannot remain in the field for more than a few days without significant risk of infection. I'm aware that the Soviet Army employed large numbers of women during WW2, but those women also suffered high attrition rates due to disease (not to mention combat).

The supplies that it would take to keep even a company of female soldiers in a combat-ready state are prohibitive. One to four-hundred female combatants are going to require at least eight hundred tampons or sanitary napkins each month, assuming that they all get their periods at the same time, which they don't. On the surface of it that may not seem like such a problem. That's only one truckload per company per month, but when you consider the time-sensitive needs of all those female soldiers, it become a logistical nightmare.

Females also require field or garrison shower facilities. Even one field shower needs an entire convoy just to transport the hardware, and it also needs a water source, and if one is to be humane, a water heater of some type, and that convoy and those supplies are going to have to be sent out every few days, or maintained by a combat engineer detatchment. In today's fluid batlefields, that is hardly an option. Combat operations must be conducted in a rapid fashion and must also be extremely flexible. The supply needs of males are hard enough to meet without also having to allocate field showers, combat engineers, and motor assets to a female or unisex unit. Female combatants are simply not conducive to logistics.

Next, there is the male factor. It's bad enough that male soldiers would rather spend their time cavorting with female comrades than doing what the hell they are supposed to be doing, but there is also the risk of enemy combatants taking advantage of captured or wounded female combatants.
I don't even like thinking about it.

Finally, there is the female effect upon the male combat psyche. Like it or not guys, there isn't a one of you who wouldn't do something stupid like abandoning your sector of fire to save a wounded or threatened female. Hell, I'd do the same thing. We are genetically predisposed towards the welfare of female humans. Every single one of them is essential to the propogation of the species because they are the only ones who can bear children, usally one at a time, who require almost two decades to develop. We, however, are not, which is why we are the ones who fight and die over whatever silly thing that might come up.

I've gone on for way too long sbout this topic, but I still have these questions: Do women even have a place in combat? And why the hell does Sweden feel the need to conscript people?

[XabbaRus]

Skybird has got serious company!!

[Biggles]

Got meself a female friend who is eager for the army, doing training and all that stuff. I think, why not? Having entire companies crammed full with women might not be the ideal combat strategy, but one here and there are just fine with me.

As to why we conscript, I really don't know. I do know they're picky, and very few get into the army. I sure as hell didn't.

[antikristuseke]

While in basic we had some Signals batallion girls doing their junior nco course with the staff company and since staff shares a barracs with recon we gout our fair share of eye candy, I even managed to get some private time with one of them . Anyhow they showered with us lads and went to the sauna with us. Bunked in a room with 17 men with no issues. As far as the period thing is concerned, the one i spent a little time with was on the pill which eliminated that particular issue.
As for some other issues UnderseaLcpl (allso, you are a bastard for outranking me, damnit) raised, for the most part I see his point and cant really argue against them for two reasons 1) cant be arsed to because of lazyness 2) I have beer.

[Jimbuna]

The Swedish army are obviously reading this topic because they have just released a new improved prototype

[porphy]

Sorry Lance, no offence but that "logistical" point got to be one of the worst arguments against women in the armed forces I have seen in a while.

When I did my service in Sweden in the early 90s there were few women around, and none in my unit. Most of them were in the navy or air forces, but some women officers were in the army. Clearly I don't have experience first hand with mixed units, and certainly not in a live combat environment. The one to best give an proper answer to your point would of course be a women with army combat field experience.

I do however have repeated experience being with women on high altitude climbing expeditions and other rather long and rough mountaineering/hiking trips, and I can assure you part of those include rather hostile and inconvenient environments for prolonged time. All women so far have performed very well and have not been falling short in performance because of periods, sanitary "logistics" or lack of showers. Sanitary conditions are important for anyone, both male and female living in harsh environments, and my experience is that both know enough about this to take care of it in a rather down to earth way as individuals, when it is needed. I can't see being in the army is much different in that respect.

When it comes to genetics and evolutionary approaches I'm not sure most of your points are that relevant for a professionally trained army (not that Sweden has that in all respects, as training can be much too short ). We might all be on a genetic leash and we certainly have evolved as a species. But most serious geneticists and biologists also point out that the genetic leash is not as tight as it sometimes portrayed, and can't really be used to give direct reasons pro or contra social policies. To predict male or female behaviour in combat from an evolutionary approach is rather sketchy indeed. The idea that males would tend to do stupid things to save wounded females is frankly quite a good example of how absurd conclusions singleminded genetic/evolutionary reasoning can reach. It really is more of a blindfold than enlightening when used as the overriding compass on every issue. One must not fall in love with only one way to explain everything, just because it is a very good way to explain some things.

My line of thought is more like this. If males and females can mix it up in ordinary civil life working, competing and cooperate etc. I can't see why they shouldn't be able to do it as good or as bad in the army. I'm sure there are both benefits and drawbacks with a mixed army, but that should also be true for a male only army. I have never really seen a comparison of both drawbacks and benefits for both options, which would be a more interesting topic than what problems women would mean in the army.

Sure some "jobs" need special requirements when it comes to physical and psychological characteristics, but they are, as you say statistically spread out in the population of both male and females. That some are more common in one group, male of female, is no argument against individuals fulfilling the requirements, even if that person is from the less representative group.

Why we have conscripts in Sweden? That is the law for males over here, even if it pretty much hollow these days. When I did my service, if you refused doing your time in the army you would go to prison. Today most males that actually want to do the service are sent home again for not qualifying. A rather different approach to the conscripts! Females volunteer for military service.

cheers porphy

[Monica Lewinsky]

Originally Posted by porphy

Why we have conscripts in Sweden? That is the law for males over here, even if it pretty much hollow these days.

cheers porphy

We too have laws [too/also] to prevent going to/and visiting Sweden to prevent stuff like this:

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/...stranger_1.wmv